Where I work, parents earn more than childless people... and it annoys me

[MustBookADentistAppointment]

So, where I work, parents receive an allowance because they have children. I don't have any children, but I would really like them. The argument is that people with children need the money because it's expensive having kids. Which I don't disagree with for a minute, but it pisses me off, nonetheless.

I'm single. Which means I have to pay all my rent/mortgage etc on my own, which is expensive. More expensive than if I lived with a partner. But I don't qualify for extra salary. Clearly, it's my choice to live alone, and I'm not blaming being single on my colleagues but hopefully you see what I mean. I'd also like a dog, but wouldn't get extra money to pay for dog daycare/walkers etc (I am NOT comparing having children to having a dog, just explaining that my lifestyle choices don't qualify for extra payments, like they would if I had children).

I can totally see the merit in an allowance for children, but am I being unreasonable to be pissed off about it? I'm slightly jealous of them, and am also paying through the nose for private therapy to try and manage/get over being alone and feeling sad about it - I just feel that their lifestyle is being subsidised, whereas mine isn't, even though it's kinda expensive too.

Iggi You seem a little naive. DH has a company car. He drives about 20k miles a year around the US. The wear and tear on the car is great and the tax rules only allow 53c on the mile reimbursement, not covering a fraction of the true cost of driving so much for work.

Also, DH and I live 3000 miles from home. We have relocated for the benefit of DH's employer and they pay us more to give us an incentive to do it. If they didn't pay more we would be living at home with PIL around the corner to help with childcare needs, saving us a fortune.

You also say you don't like bankers bonuses... It isn't just bankers who are paid bonuses. It is a well used tool to incentivise employees. For those in management it works well otherwise they wouldn't still give bonuses out. Also, most people in management work lots of unpaid overtime. The bonus covers that overtime. In a regular position the employee is paid overtime. I know the bank I worked, the sales traders were on a base of GBP30k and earned a bonus on top of that. Some made over a million or more a year, most earned a lot less than that. They worked long hours for that money. You might view things like business travel and evenings entertaining clients as 'enjoyment' but at the end of the day it is work and it sucks to be at a client dinner when you want to go home to your family and veg out on the sofa.

Bonuses, meals with clients, company cars, relocation costs and incentives are, I think, different from giving people additional money because they happen to have children.

My friend has a mother whose dementia is becoming very difficult to cope with. She is becoming more and more of a carer to her. If people are paid to have children in order to help them with childcare costs (presumably, rather than a monetary reward for their fertility) then why should people with elderly relatives or disabled relatives who need care not be given money by their employers?

cauliflower An elderly parent has had a lifetime to build up savings. They can also go into a care home if needs are too great for family which is paid for by the state if they don't have sufficient funds. DC are dependents, grannies and grandpa's are not.

I personaly don't think it as unfair...infact,it is an insentive for working parents to go back to work and not worry about childcare which is very expensive.An average daycare charges £5.00 an hour.Do the Maths.That is £800 a month on one child....some people have to pay this much when a child is 6months to atleast 3 years.I love your employer already.
We have people on benefits....majority wold never look for work to save their lives and some are the same ones that would cause troubles in schools ...but the state still looks after them...almost like rewarding zero effort.(This is just a small % not everyone on benefit.Most are genuine)
I see your point on feeling unsettled about it but atleast if you were in the same position,you'd appreciate the extra cash...

who do you think will be paying the taxes that will support you in old age?

Er, me, unfortunately - unless by then HMRC have decided to waive all taxes for the elderly .

Sounds great! Where do you work I'd like to apply please 😂
I think it is very fair tbh it is expensive raising children and after all they are our future!!! No dog is going to be a doctor or scientist one day... I think. 😀
I do understand your point but I hope you'll have children one day and reap the benefits and feel how expensive it really is as well as the heartbreak of leaving your children to go to work in order to provide for them.
I don't mean this in a mean way at all and I hope you don't take it up as that.
It is quite nice of your employer and very understanding. X

Want2be - actually I don't think that people with care issues for anyone should have additional payments made by their employer. I believe that people should be paid for the job that they perform. But if employers are going to give employees who inflated salaries due to their fertility, then I think other needs should also be taken into account.

Wouldn't this fall foul of the Equality Act because surely it would have a disproportionately negative impact on same sex couples? Obviously same sex couples do have kids, but it is statistically less common.

Bonuses, meals with clients, company cars, relocation costs and incentives are, I think, different from giving people additional money because they happen to have children.

Bang on.

Whatever Please spare us the "children are our future" cliche. It gives the impression that those who can't have children are letting the side down by not helping secure the future of the human race. And that by rewarding those who have had children simply for, well, having working equipment, gives the impression that parents are more important than non-parents. Which is, quite frankly, offensive and bollocks.

witwoo or anyone over the age of about 45? Or anyone with fertility issues? Or anyone who would prefer not to have children? Same sex couples aside, there are a whole raft of people that this could be seen as discriminatory against I would say.

Karma What has your children's clothes got to do with your employee paying you for the work you do for them? Do you, as a parent, work more than a non-parent?

cauliflower indeed but fertility issues and choosing to be childless aren't protected characteristics for the purposes of the legislation as far as I'm aware so wouldn't be illegal

Imagine if it was not just with your salary that you could expect an extra bonus for having a child but also when you bought things in shops.

That'll be £299, Madam. Oh, I see you have a child. Let me just apply our usual discount then to people who have children.... OK Madam, that's £200 for you.

Next please.

Hello Madam, the same TV set you say? Yes of course, £299 please. No no, you can't have it for £200 like the lady in front of you. Why? Because she's entitled to a special discount because she's a parent and you aren't. You have to pay the full whack. Shouldn't be a problem though should it, because you can save money from not having childcare expenses. Yes yes it's the same item and it's the same shop but for YOU it's more expensive.

I remember when I started working in corporate environment that had heavily subsidised on site child care I was a bit annoyed that I had no "extra compensation" in kind. But now I see that the company benefited greatly as they retained many experienced and valuable female staff who could keep their children on site and they often returned to work sooner. Likewise I took an international transfer and didn't get private school fees and larger family sized accommodation allowance because I was single. But I also suspect that had I had a family I would not have been given the transfer (that I wanted) so readily.

I know of a few families who try to negotiate international transfers but the companies won't fund enough to move them and so offer the transfers to people who either won't move their families or who don't have families.

I don't understand the legality of it but when I was badly injured once and my DH asked for unpaid leave his work paid for a temporary nanny for us rather than give him unpaid leave. They did this for themselves, not as a courtesy to us!

I can't see the problem with private health insurance (although our children are also covered on DH's work policy so that is an additional benefit) car allowance, clothing allowance, gym memberships, private club memberships, etc. Why do people have problems with these as well? Those are entirely different from additional payments / benefits that arise as a direct result of having children.

Good morning, estate agents, can I help you?
Yes, that house is still for sale. The asking price... yep... it's £599,950. No I'm afraid the vendor is asking for offers above. ....
Well you should have SAID!! Of couuuuurse!! Three children? Well then in that case she has agreed it for £509,000 - yes that's right, £30,000 for each child. Well S he's keen to help out with your expenses and is really grateful that you're populating the planet, that's why. It's the new thing. We only charge the highest prices for those who don't have kids.

I love you Cauliflower

Super mum I'm not naive for not knowing how many miles your dh drives in his company car. Plenty of people with such vehicles do nothing like that it's just a perk. And I would stand by a dislike of bankers' bonuses (I chose my example with care) till I die as it sticks in my craw that so much public money was effectively stolen.
The naivety comes from a poster thinking it's an entirely free choice between men and women about who works part-time, or that the pay gap doesn't exist. The word I should have used was "practices" not "policies" - of course discrimination will not be written down in the actual policies. It's not even often deliberate, it's just a sidelining of women's careers. New York Times back in 1989 described mummy mommy tracking as a phenomenon "in which women with family responsibilities are shunted into dead-end, lower-paying jobs."

Sounds like discrimination to me against people who don't want or can't have children. Highly unfair.

Cauliflower's examples are not comparable as the shops gain nothing from them. The company choosing to pay an employee extra isn't doing this as a philanthropic effort, they have calculated that this attracts/retains staff they want to keep.

It is comparable from the perspective that both policies are unfair though, and dependent on something which is unlinked to the performance of either the employee or the attractiveness of the buyer.

Shatner

There is also dependent leave so a single person may for example need time to help an elderly relative so everyone is the same in that respect.

In my old company we all had a benefits pot and could tailor to our own circumstances and for parents there were 20 days emergency childcare including nannies.

Although parents can be seen to need to leave on time to pick kids up and needing flexibility to enable them to work whilst caring for dc this can happen with anyone in respect of elderly parents. In addition parents are less likely to move from a job that is geographically convenient - less move able than a single person or childless couple and so potentially more loyal.

The company choosing to pay an employee extra isn't doing this as a philanthropic effort, they have calculated that this attracts/retains staff they want to keep.

Absolutely!